Dear Studier,I say no Animaltestes,wrong way. Do you know tha Orange can express and communicate handmerks with People.The most Intellectual Animal.My Brother have cleanlovepartnership with Arodes 4 years old dogo argentino.Professor and Nobelist when my Father had.. done Ed. D.Title yes then Wilmos Chaney )962 in Chemistry Nobel sayed then that I am very,very beautiful girl,so wha he sayed that dogs think,hes dog tested.Then I smile because my own dog Labi so vice,dont notice Willy at all.Do you have the True Knowhow,Knolige.Sorry,I think clerbeautybrains that No.Study,reed more you.Learn what I give all Dear Readers.Your Veganist 25 years and 40years old.Yes I am still like my Brother sayf my looklike age 23 years.

I agree with you completely. This right here is the syntax of most science articles and blogs everywhere on the Internet. When you are previously familiar (by reading primary sources) of the basic science behind some of these articles you cringe with pain, head desk and then move on.

I always wonder do they teach this in their journalism courses in school or are they copying prior culprits who also had deadlines to meet and get paid by the article?

Impenetrable wall-of-text from a long-time lurker that awkwardly comes out in the open for the first time in years, compliments, LOLs
and then links to a wickedly funny video on exactly the same theme!

‘Dramatically titled neuroscience story’. Do they have any substance to them ? No, of course not, when typically written to this ‘story formula’ ! ‘Overly technical’ is meant to create perception of science and contrived analogy makes it ‘understandable’ to general masses. Its exactly as written and as filed.

*eyeroll* Snark that the “discovery” is actually 20 years old, and that the *real* original breakthrough was overlooked and discounted as a crackpot. Sour grapes. Smug allusion to some new age or “eastern” practice that is centuries old.

Study on midbrain areas suggesting motivational, emotional and activation dysregulation. Uses animals to prove this point. Overgeneralization. Neglect of envirnmental factors. Begging the question: False causality or ipso facto a priori about the world at large influencing evolutionary morphologies. Suggestion that health policies should be changed. Rallying cry for more research of this sort.

Briliant! I laughed out loud, but at the same time I feel remorse because this is a quite actual account of what my university taught me in ‘writing an academic article’ class, and back then I did little to prevent this swagger type of thinking to settle down in my head.
Thanks!